Methods-Disclosure Procedures

[stev_hav]

It appears that current procedures, in this area, are less than ideal. In my opinion, two changes would do much to improve the situation:

A. Use of a standardized "one-line system summary" message.

B. Pre-registration (most likely electronic) of "unusual methods".

 

The "system summary" message has become fairly-common practice on OKBridge; basic intent to disclose the "most significant" methods:

"2/1, UDCA, Multi, CAPP . . "

"Precision, Roman 2d, . . "

 

Opponents are thus placed "on notice" that an artifical 1c and/or 2d opening is "definitely possible"; absent prior agreement on defenses, they are well-advised to (briefly) discuss same.

 

Ideally, there would be standards, concerning what should be included, specific abbreviations, and the sequence of entries. There'd be no requirement that such standards be complied with, nor that any form of message be issued. It would, however, be "strongly presumed" that a standards-compliant message, which included mention of a convention, constituted compliance with any applicable pre-alert requirements. .

 

My primary interest, at this time, is to determine whether there's significant interest in promoting use, and appropriate "standardization", of such messages. Consistently, I am cross-posting to rec.games.bridge, rec.games.bridge.okbridge, and the Bridgebase forum.

[hrothgar]

Hi Stev

 

Here is a quick summary of my thoughts on this subject:

 

(a) I agree completely with you comment that standardized prealert strings are strong desirable.

 

(:P I believe that hypertext convention cards are probably the best way to describe complex bidding systems. http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/MOSCITO.htm represents my attempt to define such a card for MOSCITO.

 

© I have been contemplating trying to start an initiative to create a defensive database. The purpose of this database would be to develop web pages documenting suggested defenses to various methods in use arround the world. I think that this would be a valuable addition for online bridge.

[inquiry]

(a) I agree completely with you comment that standardized prealert strings are strong desirable.

 

(:P I believe that hypertext convention cards are probably the best way to describe complex bidding systems. http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/MOSCITO.htm represents my attempt to define such a card for MOSCITO.

 

© I have been contemplating trying to start an initiative to create a defensive database. The purpose of this database would be to develop web pages documenting suggested defenses to various methods in use arround the world. I think that this would be a valuable addition for online bridge.

 

 

I wish you luck on your defensive database. That would be a nice addition, and I would love to see it. I would even volunteer to help gather info for it. It might be very helpful, indeed, if it is as nicely hyperlinked as you moscito document. HAving said that, I am not exactly sure if your agreement stev with hypertext document is exactly an agreement. I think he was talking about one line of text you paste into the table when you start against new opponents using abbr. that stand for standard stuff... 2/1, cap, bergen, jac, etc. The hyperlink document you show, which is very nice, runs 28 pages. There is no way anyone has time to wade through that if they sit down to play two boards against you.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Hi Ben

 

When I designed the card, my goal was to create a structure that does not require looking at extraneous information.

 

Case in point:

 

The initial web page contains a very brief summary of the system. This page is intended to provide the minimum information set that people should be aware of when they sit down and play against us. [We play a strong club, we play 4 card majors with a majors first style, we open very light, ...]

 

This introductory page provides the same information that Stev wants people to transmit without the same worries regarding space and abbreviations.

 

This first page provides three basic branches:

 

1. The detailed description of the system. These pages are useful for

 

(a) Suggested defenses

(:P Negative inferences during our constructive auctions

 

2. Our defensive methods and carding

 

3. Our competitive overcall structure.

[stev_hav]

Primary intent, of my original post, was to advocate standardization of one-line "greetings".

 

Presumably desirable--and feasible--in ordinary FTF competition.

 

Undisputed that implementation of automated methods-disclosure procedures is also "desirable". But, in view of player-acceptance and cost, at best "questionably", near-term, feasible.

[dugite]

When in BBO I usually say(when playing with my usual partner "5 card majors,asking C,16-18 1NT,Myxo 2's...We will alert via chat box if no room in alert box"or something similar.

 

In Swangames it is a lot easier as you can save a macro and post it at every table you go to or when new ops arrive.

 

As for OK...I only went there twice and found the players to be rude,arrogant and condescending(even worse than Pogo{if you can imagine that})so I have no idea how to post it there.

 

In offline bridge we all have convention cards that must be on the table at all times but we still say 5 card majors etc every time.

 

In Australia ,at most club events, bidding is done silently(we bid using pens on printed slips)and alerts are explained by the bidders partner(often it is wise to ask once the bidding is done-in case the ops are lost).